Manchester33
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Messages
- 6,840
Was reading into the actual health risks about smoke bombs and found a few interesting things from neutral sources on the internet.
Mainly that the smoke itself consists off CO2, nitrogen, water vapor, and potassium carbonate. It isn't incredibly toxic by any means. Some people have said certain smoke bombs can be more poisonous depending on the level of KNO3 (Potassium Carbonate) in the mixture. This can lead to larger amounts of Carbon Monoxide being created, which is, of course, very toxic... On the other hand, the majority of firework manufacturers in Europe are regulated and the type of websites that sell these smoke bombs wouldn't get their mixtures wrong. The carbon monoxide point is aimed towards people who cook them at home. (Which is obviously more risky and never recommended).
flames/fire/cans exploding....
With the formula I've read, there is no evidence of cans exploding or open flames igniting. If the cans are left in a hot place then can begin to react, but this would just result in the desired effects of a smoke bomb rather than creating a fire, and again, would only really happen if someone inexperienced cooked their own and got things wrong.
Now here's an article I've read from a more bias view.
Notice above 4 different words:
Flares
Smoke bombs,
Pyrotechnics,
Smoke Generators.
Throughout this article It's clear to see Flares are dangerous. Flares are of course a type of Pyrotechnic device, as too are smoke bombs. But throughout this article there is no real evidence of smoke bombs causing harm or being a health risk on the same scale as flares. But because they require a flame to ignite them in some cases, (in others there is a cord to pull which will ignite the smoke bomb) they are branded as being just as dangerous.
I found about 5 reports on other forums of incidents where people had to seek medical attention because of the use of Smoke Bombs, this was always people losing their breath and having to be given oxygen. There were no long term injuries and no deaths. These were on other forums so can't be classes as fact, it's down to whether you believe everything posted on these places.
I found 2 reports of deaths which police seems to use as evidence against smoke bombs. The first was an American woman on a TV show who had one fired at her at 150 mph, the other was in Wales where a similar thing happened, however this time it was a man who had one shot at him from a military spec grenade launcher. Both obviously taken out of context.
The Cigarette arguments to do with smoke bombs:
Cigarette smoke is a lot more toxic than the smoke produced in these smoke canisters (some websites report it to be nearly 1000x, but other sources differ so it's hard to interpret the exact difference). Before the smoking ban was introduced there was only one serious tragedy (In England) which was obviously the Horrific Bradford fire incident. After this and the inquest following the Hillsborough disaster, most football stadiums across the country underwent a revamp from wood to plastic seating and other fire prevention methods, which would seriously minimise these risks from happening again. This brings me onto the point that modern stadia should be safe enough that a live flame caused by certain pyrotechnic devices shouldn't cause a fire on the same scale as Bradford. There is evidence that smoking in concourses was the biggest cause of complaints at football matches before the smoking ban. The level of complaints about smoke bombs are significantly less (But significantly less people set off smoke bombs than the number of people who used to smoke at the football). Since the smoking ban surveys show parents are more willing to bring their children to the game, encouraging what is now a family sport. Other surveys suggest over 90% of match going fans agree there should be areas within the stadium where safe standing is permitted and younger children and OAP's can only purchase a ticket after being told about the risks of being in the middle of a more fanatical set of supporters. I wonder if the people who would choose to go in these areas would complain about the use of smoke bombs?
Another survey I saw showed around 70% liked the use of 'pyrotechnics' at football games.
It's statistical fact that even today, more people request medical attention because of violence at football matches in the UK than the use of pyrotechnic devices.
Right now, people who get caught taking a smoke bomb into a football stadium will receive a 3 year ban and will be forced to surrender their passport over to police when their team or England play abroad.
From reading websites online with professional opinions, my views on smoke bombs haven't changed too much. Make of this what you will because I've obviously taken most of it and interpreted it in a more bias view. Personally I don't mind them being set off and would agree that they encourage an atmosphere at football games. However I would never take one into a stadium as the risks of a ban and the inconvenience to others would put me off.
Mainly that the smoke itself consists off CO2, nitrogen, water vapor, and potassium carbonate. It isn't incredibly toxic by any means. Some people have said certain smoke bombs can be more poisonous depending on the level of KNO3 (Potassium Carbonate) in the mixture. This can lead to larger amounts of Carbon Monoxide being created, which is, of course, very toxic... On the other hand, the majority of firework manufacturers in Europe are regulated and the type of websites that sell these smoke bombs wouldn't get their mixtures wrong. The carbon monoxide point is aimed towards people who cook them at home. (Which is obviously more risky and never recommended).
flames/fire/cans exploding....
With the formula I've read, there is no evidence of cans exploding or open flames igniting. If the cans are left in a hot place then can begin to react, but this would just result in the desired effects of a smoke bomb rather than creating a fire, and again, would only really happen if someone inexperienced cooked their own and got things wrong.
Now here's an article I've read from a more bias view.
Notice above 4 different words:
Flares
Smoke bombs,
Pyrotechnics,
Smoke Generators.
Throughout this article It's clear to see Flares are dangerous. Flares are of course a type of Pyrotechnic device, as too are smoke bombs. But throughout this article there is no real evidence of smoke bombs causing harm or being a health risk on the same scale as flares. But because they require a flame to ignite them in some cases, (in others there is a cord to pull which will ignite the smoke bomb) they are branded as being just as dangerous.
I found about 5 reports on other forums of incidents where people had to seek medical attention because of the use of Smoke Bombs, this was always people losing their breath and having to be given oxygen. There were no long term injuries and no deaths. These were on other forums so can't be classes as fact, it's down to whether you believe everything posted on these places.
I found 2 reports of deaths which police seems to use as evidence against smoke bombs. The first was an American woman on a TV show who had one fired at her at 150 mph, the other was in Wales where a similar thing happened, however this time it was a man who had one shot at him from a military spec grenade launcher. Both obviously taken out of context.
The Cigarette arguments to do with smoke bombs:
Cigarette smoke is a lot more toxic than the smoke produced in these smoke canisters (some websites report it to be nearly 1000x, but other sources differ so it's hard to interpret the exact difference). Before the smoking ban was introduced there was only one serious tragedy (In England) which was obviously the Horrific Bradford fire incident. After this and the inquest following the Hillsborough disaster, most football stadiums across the country underwent a revamp from wood to plastic seating and other fire prevention methods, which would seriously minimise these risks from happening again. This brings me onto the point that modern stadia should be safe enough that a live flame caused by certain pyrotechnic devices shouldn't cause a fire on the same scale as Bradford. There is evidence that smoking in concourses was the biggest cause of complaints at football matches before the smoking ban. The level of complaints about smoke bombs are significantly less (But significantly less people set off smoke bombs than the number of people who used to smoke at the football). Since the smoking ban surveys show parents are more willing to bring their children to the game, encouraging what is now a family sport. Other surveys suggest over 90% of match going fans agree there should be areas within the stadium where safe standing is permitted and younger children and OAP's can only purchase a ticket after being told about the risks of being in the middle of a more fanatical set of supporters. I wonder if the people who would choose to go in these areas would complain about the use of smoke bombs?
Another survey I saw showed around 70% liked the use of 'pyrotechnics' at football games.
It's statistical fact that even today, more people request medical attention because of violence at football matches in the UK than the use of pyrotechnic devices.
Right now, people who get caught taking a smoke bomb into a football stadium will receive a 3 year ban and will be forced to surrender their passport over to police when their team or England play abroad.
From reading websites online with professional opinions, my views on smoke bombs haven't changed too much. Make of this what you will because I've obviously taken most of it and interpreted it in a more bias view. Personally I don't mind them being set off and would agree that they encourage an atmosphere at football games. However I would never take one into a stadium as the risks of a ban and the inconvenience to others would put me off.
